4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/07/20 - Jul 20, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/07/20

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 38m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional issues does Peter Nguyen raise in the first case?

Peter Nguyen 10:03

another case to cut off my argument. That's all I want to say.

Unknown 10:08

All right. Thank you both. The matter is under submission. The next case is Peter Wynn versus Rita Kramer.

Peter Nguyen 10:22

Yes, Your Honor. Both of them, both cases are the same case.

Unknown 10:26

Give us your appearance, please.

Peter Nguyen 10:27

Yes. My name is Peter Nguyen. I am the plaintiff for the second case.

Unknown 10:32

And you want to reserve five minutes?

Peter Nguyen 10:35

Yes. For the same situation, the case has happened. Throughout the litigation, I have consistently maintained that my claim arise from constitutional right. After the city official enter to my private property and take a picture without my consent when I wasn't at home. The four amendment protect Again, unreasonable short and seizure. And the First Amendment protects the right to petition for the government for redress of grievance. Even though I respectfully repeat this constitutional issue, the trial court never meaningful address them on their merit. For that reason, I just keep repeating and repeating, but the court, Never mentioned that. They denied the leave to amend. Even I can provide information, all the bleeding effect can be cured.

Peter Nguyen 11:49

And I tried to send out the discovery request to the opponent many times, but never respond. I raised up this issue to the court, but the trial court never mentioned that. So I have no chance to develop my claim. And also, they allow to award attorney fee. Even they know for sure my claims is we got into constitutional right. So I believe the fee award will yield That's some kind of punishment for me to bring up, to exercise my constitutional right. So I wonder if any other case, they want to exercise their constitutional right, they cannot do that because they have to face the attorney fee as a punishment. So for the same reason, I believe I respectfully to ask the court to revert the judgment, vacate the attorney fee, and remain the matter to further proceeding consistently with the California and federal law.

Peter Nguyen 13:00

That's all I need. Thank you.

Unknown 13:02

Welcome.

Roberta Krause 13:04

Respondent? Please, the court. Roberta Krause appearing for the respondents in this case. Just a few brief things to clarify. This appeal is from the demurrer sustained as to the third amended complaint. So Mr. Wynn had had multiple opportunities to amend. There's no evidence before this court. There's no evidence in the record that he ever offered to the trial court any information that he could add to a fourth amended complaint that would justify granting leave to amend. There is no award of attorney's fees in this matter. The judgment awarded costs to the respondents. There's no evidence the respondents ever filed a cost bill that there's ever been an award of costs or attorney's fees in this case. And that's it.

Unknown 13:50

Mr. Wynn?

Peter Nguyen 13:51

Thank you, Your Honor. For the second case, the opponent submitted the motion for the murder. And the decision from the trial court, they never granted. So that's why I have no reason to amend the claim. That's all I need.

Unknown 14:06

Thank you both. The matter is under submission. The next matter on calendar is the people versus Freddy Alfredo Curiel.

Michelle Peterson 14:21

Good morning, Your Honor.

Unknown 14:23

Good morning. One moment while we respond and get set up here. That fellow may proceed.

Michelle Peterson 14:36

Thank you, Your Honor. Michelle Peterson for Appellant Freddie Curiel, and I'd like to split my time. Ten plus five, please.

Unknown 14:44

All right.

Michelle Peterson 14:45

And may it please the Court. We've highlighted in our briefing several appellate decisions that came down after this Court's original 2008 opinion in Mr. Curiel's case. the Supreme Court's opinions in Ware, Nguyen, Renteria, and Hien, this court's Soriano opinion authored by Justice Moore, and the opinion of People v. Ramon on which this court relied in Soriano, all of which talked about the necessity of foundation, evidentiary foundation, that is specific to the case for a gang expert opinion. And in particular, this court held with Soriano, quote, speculative testimony by a gang expert does not constitute substantial evidence to support a gang enhancement. And we submit that the case law since 2008 has said it isn't substantial evidence of anything else either.